Stephen Harper has had a fine old week. Which is curious, considering he’s newly short one experienced and skilled foreign minister, one Toronto suburban MP and one formerly devoted retainer, with rumours of further departures swirling. How can things be so good for this prime minister, when they’re so bad?

Answer, in a nutshell: Opposition weakness. In last Friday’s Supreme Court decision legalizing assisted suicide, Justin Trudeau’s Liberals were blessed with the equivalent of a breakaway on an open net. They fired the puck high and catapulted themselves headlong into the boards with the Eve Adams floor-crossing. Mr. Harper, meantime, carefully moved his players, in a way that shores up his defence in key areas. It does not bode well for the Grits as the government-in-waiting.

Consider that, the same morning Mr. Trudeau sat smiling beside turncoat Tory MP Ms. Adams, blithely unaware of the incredulous skepticism that was about to engulf them both, Mr. Harper without fanfare shifted Rob Nicholson to Foreign, Jason Kenney to Defence, and put James Moore atop his cabinet committee on the economy. All this was calculated to strengthen the Tories’ position ahead of the coming election. And it will likely have that effect.

Parsing Mr. Nicholson’s move to Foreign is a no-brainer: It keeps the most prominent future leadership aspirants — including Mr. Kenney, Mr. Moore, Lisa Raitt, Tony Clement and Chris Alexander — away from that prize, ensuring domestic peace, while installing someone who will do as he’s told. This appointment bolsters the theory that outgoing minister John Baird, for all his strengths, was too independent for the PM’s liking — particularly at a time when Mr. Harper personally is directing foreign policy, looking ahead to the coming campaign.

The Kenney move is intriguing. He is known to have dearly wanted Finance last year, only to see it go to Joe Oliver. And, as reported by my colleague John Ivison, Mr. Kenney was equally keen on Foreign, this time. But Defence is nothing to sneeze at; particularly now, with Canadian warplanes and special forces in Iraq. Of greater consequence, though, particularly from the PMO’s point of view, may be that Mr. Kenney won’t be easily bamboozled by his new department.

Within Conservative circles there is a view that the F-35 fighter meltdown was bequeathed to the government by DND, and that it might have been avoided had the minister at the time, Peter MacKay, been less deferential to the military brass. Since then Defence has been shorn of much of its authority over procurement — but that hasn’t turned out to be any kind of fix.

More than two years after the F-35 purchase went supernova, and even as Canada’s old warplanes are coming in handy in Iraq and Eastern Europe, there is still no progress on a new fighter. Meantime, with Arctic sovereignty on the boil, the first of five or six new Canadian Arctic patrol ships is not due to float until 2018, at the earliest. The Navy last year retired two destroyers and two supply ships. Its Halifax-class frigates are undergoing a refit.

Amid these straits, the Canadian Forces need an influential minister who will pound the table for more resources, and have the PM’s ear. Mr. Kenney qualifies. His appointment further signals that Defence will loom large both in the coming budget, and the Tory election platform.

Why did Mr. Harper not move Mr. Oliver out of Finance, while he was at it? It has become painfully clear, since the collapse in the price of oil sideswiped the government’s fiscal plans, that Mr. Oliver struggles to communicate. In House of Commons exchanges he barely holds his own. But he has other attributes, namely reliability. A change in such a key position so soon would have unsettled markets and sent a message of panic. Therefore Mr. Moore is elevated to a position from which he can speak with greater authority about the government’s economic measures. The Industry Minister is easily the cabinet’s most fluid speaker on kitchen-table issues.

Beyond all that, looming in the middle distance, is this question: What surprises will the April budget hold? The Tories know they’re vulnerable on procurement, and the botched veterans’ file. Further, senior Conservatives are aware that Mr. Trudeau’s economic plan, aimed at soft conservative swing voters, is looming. And there’s the environment, where the government has long been three steps behind, and continues to be.

Given all this, and the nature of the threat Mr. Trudeau presents, it will not be surprising if the budget brings more money for veterans, procurement reform, something new on greenhouse gases (in lockstep with the government of Alberta), and a broader-than-expected middle-class tax cut. The Conservatives believe they have some fiscal room for the latter, I am told, despite plunging oil revenue.

Here’s the bottom line: The great tax-cut wars of 2015 are set to begin. Next to that, defections and departures are small potatoes. The Liberals have unaccountably gotten themselves sidetracked at a critical moment with internal maneuvering and controversy; while Mr. Harper quietly takes care of business, his gaze trained raptor-like on his core suburban voter. It’s déjà vu, perhaps, all over again.

The “notice-and-notice” provisions of the new Copyright Modernization Act have been in force for just two weeks, and already the Tories’ much-vaunted “made-in-Canada” copyright law is showing cracks.

The new law formalizes a practice under which copyright holders, for example film studios, who believe their work has been downloaded illegally can compel Internet service providers (ISPs) to send customers suspected of this practice a notice asking them to cease and desist. ISPs are legally required to pass these notices on to their customers, but the identity of those under suspicion is kept confidential, unless the rights holder obtains a court order for the information.

Although the system does not make it easier for rights holders to sue anyone suspected of violating copyright, the hope is that once people receive these notices they will be less disposed to download copyrighted work in the future. The problem is the system is being abused. Last week, University of Ottawa law professor and Internet policy expert Michael Geist revealed notices being sent by Rightscorp — a U.S.-based company that tries to collect settlements on intellectual property violations — that contain false and misleading statements.

Related

The notices, which have already been sent to some Canadians, cite U.S. law, which does not pertain to Canadians, and threatens to sue recipients for $150,000 if they don’t pay a voluntary settlement. In fact, Rightscorp would have to go to considerable expense to obtain a court order to determine their identity, then launch a lawsuit — and even then, the maximum liability for non-commercial infringement is $5,000. Rightscorp is betting that those receiving the notices will be unaware of their rights under Canadian law, and pay the fine to avoid legal action.

To make matters worse, Mr. Geist has uncovered documents showing that Industry Minister James Moore was made fully aware the system was ripe for abuse when the law was being drafted in 2012, but deliberately chose not to implement regulations that would have prevented companies from sending misleading notices.

It is incumbent upon the government to move swiftly to implement regulations that will close these loopholes

If, for example, the government had a standard template for these notices, a company such as Rightscorp would not be able to threaten to sue for 30 times the legal amount. Likewise, if ISPs did not face statutory damages of up to $10,000 for failing to forward a notice to a subscriber, the government could safely tell them to ignore notices containing blatantly false information.

In response, Industry Canada this week posted information on its website, belatedly informing Canadians about their rights. This is simply not enough, as most people receiving these notices will not know the statements are false, or where to go to get educated on the subject. It is incumbent upon the government to move swiftly to implement regulations that will close these loopholes and prevent unsuspecting Internet users from being fleeced by foreign companies intent on abusing our copyright system.

At first glance, the Conservative government would appear to have backed some way away from its lunatic plan, announced in the last budget, to regulate every price in Canada into line with its American counterpart. Legislation unveiled Tuesday by the Industry minister, James Moore, would not directly set prices, but rather would force businesses operating in Canadian to hand over confidential information on pricing at the Competition Bureau’s behest, the better “to expose cross-border price discrimination that is not justified by higher costs in Canada.” Businesses unable to “justify” their pricing to the Bureau would presumably be exposed to some sort of public shaming.

Whether the Bureau has the staff for this kind of massive binational fishing expedition is unclear. What is clear is that nothing has changed. While the government may not actually be planning on throwing businessmen in jail for the crime of pricing to market, it is appealing to the same ignorant superstitions as if it were. “Our government believes” the minister intoned, straight-faced, “that hardworking Canadians and their families shouldn’t be charged higher prices than Americans simply because of where they live.”

It is probably pointless to object that prices commonly differ from one place to another — or one time to another, or even one consumer to another — for all sorts of reasons, none of them nefarious. Some goods and services are cheaper in the country than the big city; for others the reverse applies. Electricity might cost more at peak hours than at other times. A store might offer its merchandise at a discount This Saturday Only. And so on.

So when the minister complains of “geographic price discrimination” he is using a dark-sounding phrase to describe a crashingly ordinary business practice. Even as we speak there are houses advertised for sale that, though similar in size and quality, vary in price by thousands of dollars, simply because of which part of the city they are in. How does something that is otherwise acceptable become a perversity merely because a national border has been crossed?

Indeed, if differences in national prices are evidence, as the minister suggests, of “gouging” — if businesses, as that in turn implies, are under no pressure to match their competitors but can charge whatever they like — then Canada has a far worse problem than a few “unjustified” differences in pricing. For if that were true it would mean competition had ceased to exist in Canada, either because all of the firms across any number of different industries were in cahoots, or because they had subjected consumers to some kind of mass mind control experiment to prevent them from shopping around.

But this is, as I say, beside the point. And the reason it’s beside the point is that, whatever other ways prices might differ, and whatever explanations might be offered for any difference in prices between Canada and the U.S., there is, in fact, no such difference. You can always find examples to the contrary, but as a general proposition there is no longer any “Canada-U.S. price gap” to speak of. There was, not so long ago. In 2011, it was about 25%, on average; by the fall of 2013, it had fallen to about 10%. It has almost certainly disappeared by now.

What changed? The exchange rate. For much of 2011, the dollar was at par with the U.S. dollar or above it. By the end of 2013, it had slipped to about 95 cents. As of this week, it is around 87 cents. That’s why there was a price gap before, and that’s why there isn’t one now.

The only reason we can even speak of prices being higher or lower in one country or another — the only way it is possible to compare them — is with reference to the rate of exchange between the currencies in which they are denominated. The higher our dollar is relative to theirs, other things being equal, the higher the level of prices in Canada will be relative to those in the U.S. The lower it is, the lower. The end.

Prices should never be higher in one place than another, it seems, but neither should they ever be lower

Everything else — tariffs, transportation costs, retail markups, regulatory red tape, all of the popular explanations, lovingly compiled by this Senate committee or that activist group — is, in this light, irrelevant. They might tell us why prices are higher in Canada than they would otherwise be. They tell us nothing at all about why prices are higher here than elsewhere.

The whole thing’s a con, in other words, a con made worse by the rank hypocrisy that surrounds it. The same government that delights in posing as the consumer’s friend oversees a vast price-fixing ring, in the production of staple foods, known as “supply management.” The same minister who claims, without evidence, that Canadians are being “gouged” on the price of a bottle of shampoo has done nothing to crack open the cozy oligopolies that in Canada control all the vital arteries of a modern economy: telecommunications, transportation and financial services.

Or if you really want to get some idea of how insane this idea is, consider this. The same government that is threatening businesses with investigation or worse for charging a higher price in Canada than in other countries is at this very moment prosecuting businesses for charging a lower price here than elsewhere. That’s called “dumping,” and it will get you hauled before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, on much the same nonsense economics as Mr. Moore’s proposed pillory for geographicists. Prices should never be higher in one place than another, it seems, but neither should they ever be lower.

There’s an old joke economists like to tell. “If a business charges more than its competitors,” they’ll say, “it’s gouging. If it charges less, it’s predatory pricing. And if it charges the same, it’s collusion.” The point is, it’s a joke.

Postmedia News

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/12/10/andrew-coyne-the-whole-canada-u-s-price-gap-issue-is-a-con-surrounded-by-hypocrisy/feed/0]]>stdsupply-managementFull Pundit: You are being overcharged, and the government is here to helphttp://news.nationalpost.com/2014/12/10/full-pundit-you-are-being-overcharged-and-the-government-is-here-to-help/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/12/10/full-pundit-you-are-being-overcharged-and-the-government-is-here-to-help/#commentsWed, 10 Dec 2014 17:20:52 +0000http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/?p=170840

Stand by for pandering“Ottawa insiders recognize” that the government’s pledge to crack down on cross-border price differences is pure “theatre,” Perrin Beatty writes in The Globe and Mail. The government hasn’t defined the problem, or explained “why it would be illegal”; the Competition Bureau “is a small, overworked agency that has nothing like the resources needed” to take on this task; and by targeting products imported from the U.S., and not from other countries, Beatty argues we will “very likely … violate trade agreements Canada fought hard to establish.” And most fundamentally, he says, it’s just anti-free market: “No bureaucracy should have the right to demand an explanation as to why you asked that extra $5,000 when you sold your house, or why the last copy of a hot Christmas toy costs so much.” And besides, consumers have never had so much freedom to shop around.

Particularly because it might violate trade agreements, Postmedia’s Michael Den Tandt thinks “the very notion of the Price Transparency Act … is fraught with difficulty, even if we somehow squeeze past the principle that government has no business telling a privately owned company what it should charge for its goods or services.” But it doesn’t matter, because politics. “Theatre, not policy rectitude, wins elections,” says Den Tandt. God help us all.

The National Post‘s John Ivison is also extremely dubious, agreeing that the Competition Bureau has neither the resources nor the philosophical inclination to pursue this line of inquiry and suggesting that cutting tariffs might be a rather more effective way of getting at the problem (if it is a problem). And oh hey, speaking of tariffs: “If the government wants to tackle a real price gap,” Ivison argues, “it should abolish the anti-competitive supply management system and watch prices for cheese, milk, chicken and eggs fall to U.S. levels.”

“It’s mostly futile. It’s pandering to public discontent,” says the Globe‘s Campbell Clark. “It will, according to [the C.D. Howe Institute’s Finn] Poschmann, cost government and business money, and maybe even discourage a few companies from doing business in Canada.” And so Clark … supports Industry Minister James Moore’s intervention on cross-border price differences because it “might just encourage a few” companies to rejig their prices. Stranger things have happened, we suppose.

The Toronto Star‘s Tim Harper thinks Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt has gotten just what he wanted, now that government lawyers are heading to court to fight First Nations that refuse to publicly disclose their financial statements under legislation he introduced. Which is to say it plays well “for a party base that likes to believe their tax money is being wasted on aboriginals, who blamed First Nations leadership for scuttling a perfectly good education funding initiative and who will tell you an inquiry into murdered and missing aboriginal women would be a useless gabfest that would merely line the pockets of high-priced lawyers.”

Duly notedAha, so that’s where the Star‘s Heather Mallick has been: Paris. She hated it. Too many rich people and fancy restrooms.

The Boomers have had enough of their notorious mistreatment at the hands of government, the Star‘s Carol Goar reports, and are mobilizing against “ageism” in all its forms. Crap. Well, we all knew this was coming — clearly, politicians and regular folk shouldn’t have ignored and disrespected seniors for so long. (Sorry, senior citizens. “Older Canadians don’t like the way society casually shortened the phrase to seniors, dropping the most important word,” Goar reports). And now it’s time to pay the piper. We suggest redoubling our efforts to denigrate white people, police officers, civil servants, West Vancouverites and other traditionally marginalized groups, lest all-out civil war erupt.

We are tempted to roll our eyes at the Star‘s editorialists for blaming Mike Harris — who hasn’t been premier of Ontario for nearly 13 years — for Ontario’s utterly absurd beer retailing system. We could sure live without their hokey beer puns, too. But we are brothers and sisters in arms on this file, and we must maintain solidarity: Queen’s Park must “end the Beer Store quasi-monopoly,” as they say. (It won’t.)

James Moore was adamant the Harper government is not regulating prices in its latest attempt to tamper with the free market. But there was more than a hint of Pierre Trudeau’s words about price controls (a policy he mocked but later implemented), in the Industry Minister’s new legislation, which is ostensibly aimed at closing the cross-border price gap for consumers.

Mr. Moore’s solution to aspirins that cost double the price north of the border and LED televisions that are priced 13% higher, is to give the Competition Commissioner new powers to investigate potential price-gougers.

The same Conservative government that denied the Election Commissioner the power to compel testimony from witnesses, in the face of allegations of widespread electoral fraud, has granted the power to compel testimony from witnesses to the Competition Commissioner.

The Competition Bureau already has the power to compel testimony when investigating price-fixing and abuse of dominant market position — criminal acts under the Competition Act. Now the Commissioner will have the power to compel companies to provide confidential pricing information. If it finds evidence of “country pricing” – the attempt to maximize profits by boosting profits in different countries – it will “name and shame” those companies.

Mr. Moore suggested the net result will be lower prices. A less rosy interpretation would be a flood of lawsuits and trade spats, as U.S. companies complain about discrimination and protectionism, in violation of Canada’s trade obligations.

How is the Bureau expected to adjudicate on what prices and profit margins are acceptable?

“The market dictates that, not governments,” said Perrin Beatty, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

Members of parliament are likely to have fewer qualms – their guide to what is acceptable is whatever the voters tell them it is. It can only be a matter of time before honourable members demand the Competition Bureau be given the power to roll back prices.

The price gap is a complicated subject. Prices are undoubtedly higher in Canada than in the U.S.

A Senate report into the subject said there are many reasons for such discrepancies, ranging from the relative size of the market to customs tariffs; from exchange rates to the price of fuel; and from product safety standards to the level of retail competition.

But charging higher prices is not an offence. Consumers are sophisticated, particularly in the age of Internet comparison shopping. The way our system works best is that when a company prices its goods higher than the market will bear, it loses market share to more cheaply priced competitors.

Mr. Moore’s interventionism harkens back to policies already discredited in the era of the Partridge Family and the Oldsmobile Regency.

As Mr. Beatty pointed out, the Senate report did make several recommendations to close the price gap – principally reducing tariffs and shredding regulations.

In its 2013 budget, the government reduced the price of baby clothing and sports equipment by removing tariffs that were as high as 18% on hockey skates.

Moore’s interventionism harkens back to policies already discredited in the era of the Partridge Family and the Oldsmobile Regency

Last fall, the National Post quoted an internal government document that suggested further tariff reductions were on the way. “If the tariff relief measures [in the budget] are successful in lowering retail prices, tariff relief could be extended to other sub-sectors of consumer products (subject to available fiscal space),” the memo said.

The Harper government appears to have concluded that the fiscal space is not available.

Hence, we are left with a watered-down industrial policy that is boldly going where few Conservative policies have gone before.

The Competition Bureau is hardly equipped for such a dramatic change of mandate, so we can anticipate the astronomical cost of building a brand new bureaucracy.

When senior executives from the Bureau testified before the Senate, they were at pains to point out the organization is not a price regulator and, as long as there is no evidence of anti-competitive behaviour, it is agnostic on the subject of prices.

Perhaps this degree of meddling shouldn’t come as such a surprise from a government that has declared war on the country’s cell-phone providers; that has just this week handed Pratt & Whitney another $300-million in corporate welfare; and, most egregiously, that continues to defend supply management, to the detriment of every consumer in Canada.

If the government wants to tackle a real price gap, it should abolish the anti-competitive supply management system and watch prices for cheese, milk, chicken and eggs fall to U.S. levels.

Here’s the message blaring from between the lines of the newly-introduced Price Transparency Act, which will draw bleats of outrage from libertarians and quite a few experts, but become the law of the land anyway: The Conservatives do not intend to quietly lie down and die, just because their government is getting old.

They will go toe-to-populist-toe with Justin Trudeau’s Liberals – and the free market, if necessary, can be damned.

This means the middle class, which is to say you, dear reader, are in for an entire year of flagrant economic seduction, from all sides in the House of Commons, assuming there’s no early election call. From now until October of 2015, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau and New Democrat leader Thomas Mulcair will jostle for the right to stuff money back into your piggy bank. The battle lines between them will concern variations in method, not ultimate aim.

Can the measures unveiled in the Toronto suburb of Etobicoke yesterday by Industry Minister James Moore actually narrow the hated price differential between some Canadian and U.S. consumer goods? Will this law, for example, result in thousands of dollars being knocked off the price of a Honda Civic on a lot in Markham, Ont., relative to the price of the same vehicle in Syracuse, New York? Will groceries, clothing and booze get cheaper in Montreal compared with their equivalents in, say, Fort Myers, Florida, so that you’ll notice the salubrious effect on your bank account during your next jaunt south?

One has to doubt it. There are no price controls envisioned here; there are no guaranteed price drops at all, even assuming the office of the Commissioner of Competition (which is, as Chamber of Commerce head Perrin Beatty put it in the Toronto Star in August, a “small, overworked agency”) is given the resources it would need to properly field, investigate and report on even a few major cross-border price-gap cases.

Rather, the lever is to be moral suasion – a dunce cap perched on the figurative noggin of any wholesaler found to have jacked up prices simply because the destination market is Canada, whose cozy, comfortable denizens just don’t complain much when they’re kicked. There will be a test case, likely something high-profile; the ensuing negative media coverage, it may be envisaged, will shame other corporate carpetbaggers into changing their ways.

Sean Kilpatrick/CPJames Moore: Keeping a close eye on price gaps

It’s just as likely, though – perhaps likelier given the Canadian dollar’s long, slow slump versus the greenback since 2011, to where it stands now at 87 cents – that the opposite will occur. That’s because cross-border price differentials are influenced by multiple moving factors, including the cost of labour, fuel, tariffs, safety and environmental standards, and the like. Of the thousands of companies offering consumer goods to Canadians a few will be targeted, and possibly some examples will be made. But the vast majority of pricing structures will be unaffected, if only because no government bureaucracy can possibly monitor all the relevant data inputs, and because there are too many perfectly legitimate reasons why a wholesaler might feel the need to raise prices.

Moreover, it’s difficult to imagine, as Beatty also pointed out, that the government’s suddenly treating U.S. products differently from those of other trading partners won’t run afoul of trade agreements. The very notion of the Price Transparency Act, therefore, is fraught with difficulty, even if we somehow squeeze past the principle that government has no business telling a privately owned company what it should charge for its goods or services.

But here’s the kicker: Politically, it is clever indeed. Even if only one or two big corporations are hauled into the stocks to be pelted with rotten yams, the Conservatives will be recognized as having done something, anything, to stick up for “ordinary” Canadians. It’s the goad, the annoyance that comes from seeing that hoodie on the rack in Buffalo, so much cheaper than it would be at home, that is the target here. And in that respect, similar to the previously announced family tax cut, it will be potent retail politics. Every Canadian who has ever driven south has a story about a product that was cheaper in the States than it is at home, and nobody likes it.

Related

Philosophically, then, this legislation is not unlike the GST cut and child fitness tax credit of the 2006 campaign, which helped the Harper Conservatives get elected in the first place. It’s a naked vote-getter. The Liberals and New Democrats will talk a great game about helping consumers and the middle class, is the implicit message: but we, that is to say the Tories, are the only ones to whom you can say, “show me the money,” and they show you some.

Mr. Moore’s overture will be dismissed by credible experts, and by the opposition, as a great deal of spectacle, and those criticisms will be entirely fair. But theatre, not policy rectitude, wins elections. For evidence Google Stephane Dion and Green Shift.

OTTAWA — The federal industry minister is dismissing the United States’ request that Canada’s proposed anti-counterfeiting laws also help keep fakes out of their country.

The laws are for Canadians, James Moore told a Senate committee Thursday.

“The idea Canada would act as a customs agent for the United States is, frankly, not something that’s on the table,” Moore said.

“The scope of this is protecting Canadians and the Canadian domestic market.”

Bill C-8, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act, is aimed at stopping the estimated $38 million worth of fake goods flowing into the Canadian market every year by beefing up the powers border agents have to stop them, among other things.

But the law only allows them to stop parcels intended for sale or distribution in Canada — not those just passing through.

That’s what has the U.S. upset.

It was one of the first things raised by U.S. Ambassador Bruce Heyman when he took up his post this past spring.

Related

“Given our highly integrated supply and production chain, a dangerously substandard counterfeit airliner part or car airbag in either of our countries is a threat to the citizens of both,” said Heyman during his first public speech in Canada in June, according to published remarks.

“We therefore believe it is in the best interest of the U.S. AND Canada to expand this legislation to include in-transit goods. We should have laws and procedures stopping these illegal goods at our shared perimeter.”

A spokesman from the embassy wasn’t available for comment Thursday as the embassy was closed for American Thanksgiving.

Moore told the committee there are procedures under existing laws such as food and consumer safety rules that would stop dangerous goods from reaching the U.S.

He has discussed the issue with both Heyman and the U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker, Moore said.

“We don’t have a customs union and it’s a bit of a stretch for someone in the American administration — I made this clear to them — to ask the government of Canada, Canadian taxpayers to act as a border filter for all goods that are destined for the U.S. market,” he said.

The issue of stopping fakes from getting across the border is broader than keeping knock-offs out of the market.

Stronger protections for intellectual property are also a key part of broader international trade and treaty negotiations, among them the Canada-E.U. Free Trade Agreement and the Trans Pacific Partnership.

Moore said C-8 has helped Canada’s international position for those deals.

“The scope of this bill, C-8, was what was requested, frankly, of the government of Canada in order for us to have a seat at table for the Trans Pacific Partnership,” he said.

Canada is among 12 Asia Pacific nations currently negotiating the broad free trade deal known as the TPP, which has attracted criticism for its broad scope and the fact that it is being negotiated largely behind closed doors.

Law professor Michael Geist, who appeared before the Commons’ committee on the bill, said Moore’s admission that C-8 was a criteria for Canada to participate is notable.

“It is the first explicit acknowledgment from the government that the US set specific intellectual property law demands on Canada to enter the TPP negotiations,” he said in an e-mail.

“This is particularly striking since it meant that the US required us to confirm legislative reforms before even negotiating the TPP.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper settled a dispute between Treasury Board and the Defence Department to approve an $800-million, sole-source purchase of next-generation Sea Sparrow missiles for the Royal Canadian Navy’s aging frigates, sources familiar with the situation say.

The decision was taken early this week following a written request earlier this month by three ministers — Industry Minister James Moore, Defence Minister Rob Nicholson and Public Works Minister Diane Finley — that won out over the objections of Treasury Board president Tony Clement, sources say.

The Sea Sparrow is built by U.S.-based Raytheon. The next-generation version, the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, is distinct from the existing, older version in that it is “smart,” and can be guided while in flight.

The upshot, if the decision stands, is that the Lockheed-Martin Raytheon group, which is vying for billions in contracts in the building of systems for Canada’s soon-to-be-built new navy, will once again have the inside track in a major defence procurement, with no competitive bidding process, as occurred in the F-35 affair. The F-35 is made by Lockheed-Martin.

The Sea Sparrow purchase would also give Raytheon-Lockheed an edge in billions worth of sub-contracts in the $26-billion national naval building project now underway, sources say, because its updated missiles could also be used on the new vessels.

“It’s identical to the F-35 consortium,” said a defence industry source, referring to the Sea Sparrow consortium, of which Canada is a member. “It’s a move by the United States again to try to keep people within their orbit.”

Until roughly half a decade ago, Raytheon’s Sea Sparrow missile was the undisputed technology leader in ship-borne missile defence systems. However in recent years European-based MBDA has shot ahead and now has technology equal to Raytheon’s, sources say.

The set-to first emerged last spring, when the Royal Canadian Navy approached Treasury Board with a request to spend $200-million to remain a member of the “Sea Sparrow club,” and participate in development of the ESSM.

Related

Treasury Board balked, out of concern the decision of a supplier to replace the missiles on the old frigates should not pre-determine the outcome of the same purchase decision for the new ships. “Treasury Board wouldn’t approve the stuff,” a defence industry source said. “They started raising hell about whether DND could go off and do this stuff without approval.”

Officials in the Defence Department eventually persuaded ministers Nicholson, Moore and Finley of the rightness of the case for the next-generation Sea Sparrows, and they, in turn, persuaded the PM, sources say.

The request for $800-million ($200-million for development and an additional $600-million to buy and integrate the missiles) is to be sent back to Treasury Board, with assertions that this purchase will have no bearing on the fire control systems and missiles in the next-generation frigates, being built under the Canadian Surface Combatant program.

“At the end of the day, the thing is a complete charade,” a source said. “If they actually went and did this and invested the better part of a billion dollars, are you going to move to another missile system at that point?”

Delivery of the new Sea Sparrow missiles would not be for another five or six years at the earliest, sources say.

OTTAWA — Although the big telecom companies have agreed to exempt some customers from fees charged for paper invoices, the federal government says it’s going to end the whole practice.

Industry Minister Jams Moore says the government will introduce legislation to end what is called pay-to-pay, that is charging people for a monthly bill on paper.

The telecom firms met under the auspices of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication Commission on Thursday and agreed to exempt some people, including seniors, the disabled, military vet’s and people without Internet access.

The CRTC said it wasn’t enough and called for another round of discussions, but that seems to have been pre-empted by Moore’s announcement.

The creation of a domestic free trade zone is an idea whose time seems to have come, and two potential candidates to succeed Stephen Harper are battling over the right to be its champion.

Brad Wall, the premier of Saskatchewan, has penned a letter (co-signed by B.C. Premier Christy Clark and Alberta Premier Dave Hancock) calling for his provincial counterparts in the east to support a new agreement on internal trade.

The call comes just weeks after James Moore, the Industry minister, said striking a deal to knock down the barriers to the internal movement of goods and services is his “number one priority.”

Is it too jaded to suggest leadership politics is helping to drive this happy confluence of events? Perhaps. But both men are young, ambitious and looking to leave a footprint beyond the jurisdiction over which they currently preside.

Related

The letter is almost dismissive of federal attempts to corral the provinces to sign a new deal. “Premiers have been leading on this file and we appreciate the federal government’s recent interest in working with provinces to modernize Canada’s internal economy,” it said. In other words, thanks for coming out, but we’ll take it from here, James.

Mr. Wall called the federal interest “serendipitous,” but said that “by and large” the provinces will have to take the lead.

Mr. Moore was magnanimous, saying “momentum is a good thing.” He said there is a clear constitutional role for the federal government to bring people together and ensure the economy operates smoothly.

Mr. Wall said he will raise the topic when all the premiers meet at the Council of Federation meeting in Charlottetown, P.E.I., next month. Mr. Moore said he is hoping to convene provincial industry ministers to meet this summer. “I’m tired of sitting about, waiting,” he said.

From a policy perspective, it scarcely matters who gets the credit, as long as new, comprehensive deal emerges to supersede the 20-year-old Agreement on Internal Trade, which does not cover sectors like energy.

In their letter, the three Western premiers said the new Canada Free Trade Zone would take the negative-list approach that has proven successful in their tripartite trade agreement, the New West Partnership. That would see all sectors falling under the obligation of a new deal unless they are specifically carved out.

Mr. Wall said that the NWP outlawed the direct subsidization of individual businesses. “On picking winners and losers, governments get it half right — on the losing part — leaving taxpayers as unwilling venture capitalists,” he said.

He said on procurement, he would like to see an end to discriminatory practices such as the “local knowledge” advantage imposed by Ontario to favour its domestic construction companies. “That creates an unlevel playing field. We’ve got to stop all that,” he said. “I was asked [by reporters] here: ‘Don’t we want local companies building these things?’… But taxpayers have to get the best value at the best price,” he said.

The letter said any new agreement would also have strong enforcement mechanisms “with the teeth to make sure that we all play by the rules.” The NWP has an enforceable dispute resolution mechanism that can impose penalties of $5-million on non-compliant governments — an improvement on the AIT but not strong enough to deter bad behaviour, in the view of some critics.

Mr. Wall said he is open to a more robust compliance regime. One solution could be an enhanced role for the competition authorities, said Kathleen Macmillan of Internal Trade Policy Consultants. “In many respects, it damages competition, so why not embolden the competition authorities to take it on?”

Mr. Moore said the election of business-friendly provincial governments across Canada (and in the case of Quebec, also federalist), combined with the agreement-in-principle of the comprehensive trade deal with the European Union, has created a “once in a lifetime opportunity” to move things along on a Canada free trade zone.

Without a new agreement, we will be left in the ludicrous situation where provincial procurement will be opened up to European companies under the E.U. deal, but not to Canadian companies from out of province. “The Canada-E.U. deal has forced us to re-examine how we do business,” said Mr. Moore.

The commitment of the three western premiers should be applauded, as should that of the new Quebec government’s Industry minister, Jacques Daoust, who Mr. Moore said was “enthusiastic” about the idea. The federal Industry minister said he’s also had a positive response from his counterparts in Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia.

But what prospect a serious agreement when each province has so many sensitivities? The giant Holstein in the room is, of course, supply management, with its agricultural marketing boards that set limits on production to boost prices.

But in almost every walk of economic life there are layer upon layer of discriminatory regulations, many with the goal of acting as a barrier to the free movement of goods and services. As John De Vries, president of the Ottawa Construction Association, said, there are different levels of regulation between Ontario and Quebec, “down to who can hold the hammer.”

Protectionism has become a pandemic — Quebec jobs for Quebec workers has begat restrictions in Ontario, in the form of the “local knowledge” advantage.

Mr. Wall said he is hopeful and encouraged by the response he has received from the Quebec government and elsewhere. But he’d be wise not to be too hopeful. The enthusiasm for free trade tends to operate inversely with the local unemployment rate. Some major political figures are competing to be the father of internal trade reform right now but should it lead to job losses, the idea may find itself an orphan.

National Post

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/09/john-ivison-is-the-new-canada-free-trade-zone-the-first-move-in-a-future-tory-leadership-battle/feed/0stdmoorewallHarper government aims for deal to end provincial trade barriers, which cost Canadian economy $50B annuallyhttp://news.nationalpost.com/2014/05/29/harper-government-aims-for-deal-to-end-provincial-trade-barriers-which-cost-canadian-economy-50b-annually/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/05/29/harper-government-aims-for-deal-to-end-provincial-trade-barriers-which-cost-canadian-economy-50b-annually/#commentsThu, 29 May 2014 04:01:14 +0000http://news.nationalpost.com/?p=471790

OTTAWA — The Conservative government is in the process of hammering out a comprehensive new agreement on internal trade with the provinces, aimed at lowering barriers estimated to cost the country $50-billion a year.

James Moore, the federal Industry Minister, said his number one priority is a new internal trade deal that would supersede the existing Agreement on Internal Trade, which was signed by the provinces 20 years ago and left intact a patchwork of cumbersome barriers.

“The Agreement on Internal Trade … is out of date and it doesn’t make sense any more,” he said in an interview with the National Post.

Mr. Moore said the election of business-friendly, federalist provincial governments across the country have created a “once in a lifetime” opportunity to make progress in an area that has proven stubbornly resistant to change.

‘‘We should seize the moment. It’s time to think big,” he said. “We have a genuine spirit of openness — a new Canadian reality. We are a trading nation and we need to modernize how we do business within Canada.’’

Since the AIT was inked 20 years ago, Canada has signed trade agreements with more than 40 other countries, including the European Union and South Korea. Some companies now complain they find it harder to do business within Canada than internationally.

Mr. Moore said that the deal with the EU will open up government procurement to foreign companies, while problems will remain for domestic firms.

Clement Allard/CPQuebec Economy Minister Jacques Daoust

“It’s inefficient, it hurts Canadian federalism and prevents small- and medium-sized companies from growing to scale and using the rest of Canada as a launching pad to engage international markets,” he said.

The Industry Minister said that the shifting international landscape has been matched by political changes at the provincial level. He said when he took the job last July, some provincial governments, particularly in Quebec, were not interested in pushing forward on the internal trade file. But he said the election of a federalist government in Quebec City has transformed the situation.

“I’ve met with my Quebec counterpart, Jacques Daoust, and he’s enthusiastic,” he said. “[The Quebec provincial government] has offered Canadians the challenge of building a better, tighter economic union. That was not possible when Premier [Pauline] Marois was there. Frankly it was not possible when Premier [Darrell] Dexter was there in Nova Scotia. And, as a British Columbian, I think it would have been near impossible under an NDP premier, Adrian Dix. That was part of the reason he was rejected as premier last year – his opposition to growth and being a genuine pan-Canadian partner.”

Mr. Moore said Theresa Oswald, Manitoba’s NDP Minister of Jobs and the current chair of the Committee on Internal Trade, the ministerial-level committee that oversees the AIT, is “forward-looking, enthusiastic and engaged” on the need to reduce interprovincial barriers.

Mr. Moore said he has already tasked his deputy minister, John Knubley, with the job of travelling the country to gauge the appetite for a comprehensive re-write of the AIT. “The proposal has been met with enthusiasm by governments all across the country, which is great news for those of us who have been looking at this with some frustration for some time.”

The next step will be a summer meeting, to be convened by Ms. Oswald after the Ontario election concludes next month, at which Mr. Moore hopes it might be possible to strike agreement on “low hanging fruit” like government procurement, transport regulations and the creation of a one-stop shop for corporate registrations (firms currently have to complete 14 separate processes to register a business).

‘It’s inefficient, it hurts Canadian federalism and prevents small- and medium-sized companies from growing to scale’

Mr. Moore acknowledged that a new trade deal would not be “an easy lay-up.” Each province is likely to have its own sensitivity — some governments were elected with explicit mandates to protect certain industries. “But self-evidently, there are areas of agreement when we have people with a broad smile saying ‘this is an ambitious project that we can sink our teeth into,’’’ he said.

Perrin Beatty, president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said he is very encouraged to hear that both Mr. Moore and Ms. Oswald are behind a comprehensive reform of the status quo. “The time is right to create a single market in Canada, instead of the Balkanized 13 markets we have now,” he said.

Mr. Beatty said, as he talks to business people across the country, he is astonished at the reaction the issue generates. “I was at a roundtable in Vancouver two weeks ago and asked for an example of interprovincial barriers. One person said ‘Take a look what constitutes a wide-load on highways in Saskatchewan and Alberta’. There are different standards from one province to another.

A new plan for the Canadian Space Agency aims to make Canada “a global leader” in space exploration, but does not promise new funding for the agency, which has been forced to trim spending since across-the-board budget cuts in 2012.

Industry Minister James Moore told reporters Friday that the CSA has “more than enough money to move forward” with the plan and that focusing on the agency’s budget is “missing the point of the policy.”

The new plan promises support to the CSA, continued partnerships with other countries on space projects and investments “in proven Canadian strengths” such as robotics. To do this, the agency will work with the private sector and granting councils to fund space research; maintain the country’s astronaut program so Canadians can be aboard future missions; and establish a Canadian Space Advisory Council.

“The point of the policy is to point out that it’s a much larger ecosystem of investment and support and policy,” Moore said. “It’s the private sector, it’s working with international partners, it’s working with industry and innovation, it’s working with military investments, it’s working with the scientific community, it’s working with universities.”

He told industry representatives and a group of local students that smart, young people will play a key role in making sure “that Canada stays a world leader” in the space industry.

“My message to you today is simple: study hard. Learn everything you can. And shoot for the stars.

“The first human who will walk on Mars has probably already been born,” he said. “Will it be you?”

James Moore / TwitterAstronauts Jeremy Hansen and David Saint-Jacques at the Canada Aviation and Space Museum.

Moore did not say what the the federal budget next week has in store for the space agency.

Canadian astronaut David Saint-Jacques, who attended the announcement, said the new policy is “perfect.”

“I think it’s right on target, it sets the right tone,” he said.

Former astronaut and CSA president Marc Garneau, now a Liberal MP, said the plan itself is a solid document, but needs money to back it up.

You don’t do that for free, it costs money

“If you’re going to execute the program – if you’re going to develop the communications technology, the Earth observation technologies, the robotics technologies, the optical technologies that are highlighted as being our technical strengths – you don’t do that for free, it costs money,” Garneau said.

“It should be a reassurance to (space programs and industry), but they’ll only wait so long, especially industry, before they’ll say ‘well, where’s the beef?’ “

“They make a framework announcement that doesn’t have any teeth and they want Canadians to get excited. I think both Canadians and Canada’s space program deserve better,” she told reporters Friday.

NASAMarc Garneau, former astronaut and mission specialist representing the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), poses for a photograph onboard the mid-deck of the Earth-orbiting Space Shuttle Endeavour in this undated photo.

The framework was developed to respond to a scathing critique of the space agency commissioned by the federal government in 2012. Former Conservative cabinet minister David Emerson reported that the CSA had “foundered” over the last decade because of a lack of clear priorities and unpredictable funding.

Alongside the announcement of the plan, the government also committed $17 million to the development of the James Webb space telescope, expected to be the most complex and powerful telescope ever when it’s launched in 2018 to replace the Hubble space telescope.

The CSA has already promised $146 million over 10 years to support design, building and science necessary to build the telescope, which is a joint multi-million-dollar collaboration with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the European Space Agency.

“Yes, space is an industry. And yes, it is vital to the well-being of life on Earth,” Moore said. “But it is also an adventure — an adventure of the intellect and an adventure of discovery. I look forward to working together with all of you as we challenge the next frontier of this adventure.”

AP Photo/NASA-TVThis framegrabbed image provided by NASA-TV shows the Cygnus spacecraft attached to the Canadarm 2 on the International Space Station Sunday Sept. 29, 2013. At the time both vehicles were travelling over the Indian Ocean.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, David and Jeremy, for that kind introduction.

I’d like to extend a special welcome to CSA President Walt Natynczyk and the rest of the Canadian Space Agency team.

And to those who have travelled long and short distances to support this announcement today including Jim Quick, President and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, and the representatives from key space companies in Canada.

Of course, we are proud to have Canada’s current astronauts with us, David Saint-Jacques and Jeremy Hansen.

And, saving the best for last, a very warm welcome to our special guests, Canada’s future leaders and future astronauts, the students of Trillium Elementary School!

Thank you all for being here today. This is an exciting occasion because we are talking about the future of our country in space.

Now, as many of you know, Canada has a long and extremely proud history of accomplishment in space. We were the third country in the world to put our own research satellite into orbit and the first to have our own communication satellite.

We are known for the Canadarm, which is Canada’s most famous robotic and technological contribution to international space exploration. It served for 30 years of successful operations, and today we have one right here in the Canada Aviation and Space Museum for visitors around the world to come see.

Canadarm2 was launched in 2001 to replace the Canadarm. It assembled the International Space Station and is still active today in space moving supplies, equipment and even astronauts!

Another proud Canadian contribution is Dextre. Dextre is the hand that attaches to Canadarm2. It is the most handy space robot ever built and is responsible for keeping the International Space Station in good shape, but it also performs important intricate tasks like servicing satellites in space.

And, of course, Canada is known for the extraordinary success of astronaut Chris Hadfield’s mission aboard the International Space Station last year. Chris Hadfield became the first Canadian ever to take command of the International Space Station. During his mission, over 100 scientific experiments took place on the space station, and he brought to Earth the wonders of working and living in space. His success will continue to inspire generations of future astronauts, including hopefully some of you here today.

Now, space has become central to our security and well-being.

We depend on communication satellites for everything from TV reception to the Internet. Remote sensing allows us to forecast the weather, monitor the climate, protect the environment and warn of natural disasters like floods and forest fires.

What’s more, the space industry adds over $3.3 billion annually to Canada’s economy and is responsible for employing more than 8,000 Canadians. And these are good and—most would agree—pretty neat jobs. The money generated by the industry and all these jobs helps strengthen the Canadian economy.

And as we approach Canada’s 150th birthday in 2017, we want to continue to support a strong, competitive and innovative space industry for the long term. We want to lead internationally, building on the successes of the Canadarm, Canadarm2, Dextre and RADARSAT and on the tremendous success of Chris Hadfield.

It will guide Canada’s activities in space over the coming years, as the students in this room grow up to be the astronauts, robotics engineers and satellite architects of tomorrow.

We are delivering on the priorities that Canada’s space industry asked the federal government to deliver on to ensure that Canada remains on top in a fiercely competitive international market.

Our approach rests on five key principles:

It puts Canadian interests first, ensuring that our sovereignty, security and prosperity are the heart of Canada’s space activities;

It uses space to strengthen our economy by supporting Canada’s space industry to bring cutting-edge technologies to the market;

It ensures that we are working together globally by partnering with other countries on major space projects like the International Space Station;

It ensures that we are promoting Canadian innovation by investing in Canadian strengths, like robotics in the Canadarm2; and

Lastly, it ensures that we are inspiring Canadians by building on our success and inspiring a future generation of Canadians interested in pursuing a career in space.

Canada’s space industry asked for change, and we are delivering because we recognize the essential role that our space industry plays in keeping Canada’s economy on the right track and in maintaining our position as a global leader in space.

Based on the principles of this framework, I’m pleased to announce that Canada has reaffirmed our commitment to the James Webb Space Telescope project, the next-generation space observatory and the most powerful space telescope ever.

The telescope’s images will serve thousands of astronomers worldwide over the coming decades. It will study every phase in the history of our universe, ranging from the first luminous glows after the Big Bang, to the formation of solar systems capable of supporting life on planets like Earth, to the evolution of our own solar system.

The government remains a proud partner in this ongoing international project. Canada’s continued participation will benefit industry, the academic community and all Canadians.

The telescope is expected to blast into space in 2018. This is just one example of Canada’s commitment to our future in space.

So that’s what the government is doing—now how about what you can do?

Well, as I hope you can tell by now, our space industry is at the heart of innovation in Canada.

But we need to keep it strong and growing.

We need to keep coming up with new discoveries and cutting-edge technologies.

In short, we need smart, young people like the ones here today to make sure that Canada stays a world leader.

So my message to you today is simple: study hard. Learn everything you can. And shoot for the stars.

The first human who will walk on Mars has probably already been born.

Will it be you?

Yes, space is an industry. And yes, it is vital to the well-being of life on Earth.

But it is also an adventure — an adventure of the intellect and an adventure of discovery. I look forward to working together with all of you as we challenge the next frontier of this adventure.

Thank you.

And now, back to the astronauts for an exciting presentation.

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/07/james-moore-canadian-space-agency/feed/1stdJames-MooreJames Moore / TwitterNASAAP Photo/NASA-TV‘Why do we have to be boring?': How Ottawa spends weeks planning a single tweet using a rigorous 12-step protocolhttp://news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/02/how-ottawa-spends-weeks-planning-a-single-tweet-using-a-rigorous-12-step-protocol/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/02/how-ottawa-spends-weeks-planning-a-single-tweet-using-a-rigorous-12-step-protocol/#commentsSun, 02 Feb 2014 23:48:31 +0000http://news.nationalpost.com/?p=422473

Pity the poor government tweet, nearly strangled in its cradle before limping into the Twitterverse.

Newly disclosed documents from Industry Canada show how teams of bureaucrats often work for weeks to sanitize each lowly tweet, in a medium that’s supposed to thrive on spontaneity and informality.

Most 140-character tweets issued by the department are planned weeks in advance; edited by dozens of public servants; reviewed and revised by the minister’s staff; and sanitized through a 12-step protocol, the documents indicate.

Insiders and experts say the result is about as far from the spirit of Twitter as you can get — and from a department that’s supposed to be on the leading edge of new communications technologies.

The documents, obtained through the Access to Information Act, show such a high level of control that arrangements are made days in advance to have other government agencies re-tweet forthcoming Industry Canada tweets, because re-tweets are considered a key measure of success.

In turn, Industry Canada agrees to do the same for tweets from the Business Development Bank of Canada and others.

Formal policy for the department was set into a protocol last October, with a 12-step process that requires numerous approvals for each tweet from Industry Minister James Moore’s office or from the office of Greg Rickford, the junior minister.

Public servants vet draft tweets for hashtags, syntax, policy compliance, retweeting, French translation and other factors. Policy generally precludes tweeting on weekends, and the minister’s personal Twitter handle must be kept out of departmental tweets, though his name and title are often included.

The resulting tweets read like stiff public service announcements, such as this October example: “Browse the Mobile Protection Toolbox to learn facts & find #tips to protect yourself. #GetCyberSafe,” with a link to the department’s website.

Sometimes the well runs dry, and bureaucrats borrow tweets from other departments.

“We are short tweets for the next two weeks and I really don’t see a harm in tweeting the attached as it’s info that is found on the IC (Industry Canada) site,” says a Sept. 27 email, asking permission to recycle a Public Safety tweet.

“We are short tweets for the next two weeks

Other times, Moore’s own office runs out of ideas and asks the department for help.

“We’re in need of content for next week,” Moore’s assistant wrote to bureaucrats Oct. 1. “Any chance you could provide us with a couple of tweets for the MINO (minister’s office) to consider?”

A social-media expert said Industry Canada suffers from a “risk averse” culture that is antithetical to Twitter.

“There are so many levels of bureaucracy, as we can see in this example, and so much fear and control,” said consultant Mark Blevis, president of Digital Public Affairs in Ottawa.

“I’ve never seen anything like this in the private or public sector. … They’ve really delineated the limits of the box. There’s no entry for dialogue.”

An insider at Industry Canada said the “super-rigid process” is frustrating, and simply doesn’t work for Twitter.

“You’re imposing structure on a form of communication that inherently rejects structure,” he said in an interview, on condition of anonymity to protect his job.

“We don’t really know what we’re supposed to be on Twitter.”

He said he’s seen proposed light-hearted tweets killed at birth because they don’t fit the template.

“What’s our problem with being lighthearted? Why do we have to be super-serious and boring, and dry all the time?”

Asked for comment, Industry Canada sent a response that echoed its own tweets, though longer than 140 words:

“Industry Canada follows the Treasury Board Standard on Social Media Account Management, which aims to provide a strategic and coherent approach for the management of departmental social media accounts,” said the email from Michel Cimpaye of media relations.

“This Standard supports Canada’s commitment to open government and enables accuracy, greater information sharing, public dialogue and collaboration.”

OTTAWA — The Harper government says it is cancelling plans to hire an outside consultant to give strategic advice on how it can negotiate free trade agreements that are advantageous to the auto sector.

The consultant was to have been paid up to $420,000 for three years to provide Canadian trade negotiators strategic advice on how to get the best deal possible for makers of cars, buses, and heavy trucks.

The federal government solicited bids for the contract on Monday, citing the fact that is moving forward with free trade talks on a number of fronts, including two countries with thriving auto industries: South Korea and Japan.

The government’s statement of work said it wanted a consultant to provide “an analysis of Canada’s trade interests, identify risks and opportunities associated with potential trade agreements, and provide strategic and economic advice in the context of Canadian manufacturing industries.”

The government is focusing on the automotive sector, as well as “mass transit manufacturing (bus, rail, heavy duty trucks),” the statement says.

“The consultant(s) will provide … written reports analyzing Canada’s offensive and defensive interests, identify risks and opportunities, trade policy provisions which can result in a Canadian advantage, and provide strategic advice to allow Canadian manufacturing industries to optimally benefit from a particular trade agreement.”

However, a spokesman for Industry Minister James Moore said Monday evening the government would not proceed with the contract.

“This contract is being cancelled. It was not approved by the minister’s office. There are more than enough civil servants with the expertise to provide this analysis,” Jake Enwright said in an email to The Canadian Press.

The Tories, ardent free traders, landed their biggest deal last fall when they signed an agreement-in-principle on a sweeping pact with the European Union.

As Monday’s call for bidders makes clear, many more deals are being sought including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as well as separate, bilateral pacts with South Korea and Japan.

The government says the new consultant would have helped create the most favourable conditions possible to help Canadian businesses compete.

“A number of the countries that Canada is currently negotiating with have significant interests in the manufacturing sector, particularly in automotive and mass transit (both export and import),” it says.

“The expert advice sought through this contract will complement the work of Government of Canada officials, providing access to a full range of perspectives and insights into best negotiation practices going forward in international trade discussions.”

Initially, the job was to have been for one year, but with options to renew for two more.

The government also planned to restrict the competition to Canadian companies.

Canada made some gains in the auto sector under the EU deal announced last fall. It gained greater access to the European market for autos that are for composed mainly of Canadian components. The elimination of Canadian tariffs will also give major European car makers a chance to increase sales through lower prices.

Don Davies, the NDP trade critic, said he was shocked that the Conservatives chose to go outside of the government for advice on trade, given that expanding it has been a main pillar of its economic agenda.

“At this stage of the game, calling for strategic advice, particularly on issues as important as the manufacturing base of Canada, I would have expected they would have had a good handle on that,” Davies said in an interview.

“They’re spending nearly half-a-million dollars of hard-earned taxpayers’ dollars for advice that I think exists, and is available to the government for free.”

Davies said the move is a “hallmark of the Conservatives” because it smacks of a lack of transparency that characterized the Canada-EU trade talks.

The statement work says that in the longer term the consultant would identify “key industry issues as well as any trade policy provisions that can be incorporated that would give Canada a competitive edge, including any competitive advantages Canada may presently have.”

It calls on the consultant to “identify any tools available to the Canadian government” that would benefit industry at home.

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/01/14/conservatives-cancel-plans-to-hire-auto-consultant-for-420000-within-24-hours-of-soliciting-bids-for-contract/feed/0stdIndustry Minister James Moore answers a question during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Wednesday Oct.30, 2013.Today's letters: 'A country that cannot feed its own people has no right to preach to others’http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/12/20/todays-letters-a-country-that-cannot-feed-its-own-people-has-no-right-to-preach-to-others/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/12/20/todays-letters-a-country-that-cannot-feed-its-own-people-has-no-right-to-preach-to-others/#commentsFri, 20 Dec 2013 05:01:31 +0000http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/?p=139811

Andrew Coyne quotes the federal minister of industry, James Moore, as saying: “Empowering families with more power and resources so that they can feed their own children is, I think, a good thing.”

The Minister may have been quoted out of context, but surely Mr. Coyne could point out that the Minister’s government has hardly been dedicated to this proposition. That’s the real point.

The philosophy and policy of this Conservative government has been to make it more difficult for poor families to feed their own children. More and more “middle class” families are also finding it difficult. Poor families find it impossible. Poverty is less a result of the inheritance of class than the inheritance of poverty. And too many Canadians have bought into the philosophy that if it’s not the government’s role to try to fix this “inheritance” thing by a more equitable social policy, then why should they?

Rabbi Arthur Bielfeld, Toronto.

Even with Andrew Coyne’s bent-over-backwards justification of James Moore’s comments, he missed some very important issues. The measurement used to determine poverty in Canada is far too low — and manipulated for political purposes. The country may have never been wealthier, but that wealth is going to a few at the top, who pay about 50% of the taxes that they used to 30 years ago. How are poor families feeding their children? With foodbanks and by going into debt. The provinces may be responsible for alleviating poverty, but they rely largely on federal transfers for funding this. This federal government takes no leadership in solving the problems of its citizens — unless they are connected with the corporate elite. So, Mr. Coyne, you too, are guilty of not presenting a balanced picture.

Patricia E. McGrail, Brampton, Ont.

Andrew Coyne’s comment on Mr. Moore’s gaffe regarding the feeding of Canadian kids fails to mention the disturbing fact that by election time 2015, the number of children living at or below the poverty line in Canada will be one million. And while he is right to say that feeding these poor children is a provincial responsibility, within that number there will be 400,000 First Nation children whose welfare rests squarely with the federal government. Where is the Harper government’s Policy on Poverty? A country that cannot feed its people has no right to preach civil and human rights to others.

I don’t think measuring a Canadian’s generosity by what we claim on our tax returns is an accurate measurement of our charity.

We give at the office. We drop change in the Salvation Army kettle and countless other charities without standing around waiting for a tax receipt. I have never claimed a charitable donation on my tax return though I have certainly made them.

Canada Post’s own Marie Antoinette — and his 20 vice-presidents

There are two ways to look at Canada Post CEO Deepak Chopra’s comment that the elderly will benefit from the termination of home mail delivery. The first is to see it as Mr. Chopra’s attempt to make lemonade out lemons by claiming that when one is forced to walk some distance to collect one’s mail (that’s the lemons), one will almost certainly become fitter and healthier (that’s the lemonade).

The other way to look at it is that Mr. Chopra is being awfully high-handed and dismissive of those whose infirmities are such that a daily hike to a mail box is a physical impossibility — not unlike an imperious Marie Antoinette advising the starving peasants to “eat cake.”

Considering that Mr. Chopra pulls in the big bucks in his capacity as the head of Canada Post, and has more than 20 vice-presidents serving under him, I’m inclined to start calling him Marie.

Mindy G. Alter, Toronto.

Deepak Chopra should stick to making financial arguments about stopping door-to-door delivery instead of the gratuitous remarks about the health benefit of “regular walks to the community mail boxes” — such walks may be risky for frail seniors. Besides, it is known that these community boxes are not as secure and subject to more theft.

I would rather pay the extra cost of door-to-door delivery than pay for a Canada-wide bilingual program that benefits francophones outside Quebec while restricting anglophones inside Quebec.

Jiti Khanna, Vancouver.

Let’s bring in direct democracy

In your page of letters to the editor about ways to improve our faltering democracy, no one talked about the only real way to do it – by permitting citizens to vote on issues, via referendums. Why not? This is done in some 20 U.S. states, New Zealand and Switzerland? Some systems permit citizens to propose issues upon which they would like a vote. The results have to be followed by the government. Is not that the real meaning of democracy — power of the people?

It is properly called direct democracy — and it works.

Dick Tafel, Corbeil, Ont.

Another option for first-degree killers

Letter-writer Ivor Williams seems overly concerned that sentencing first-degree murderers to a term of natural life behind bars would be “morally tantamount to a death sentence.” Since everyone dies, I guess you could say we are all facing a death sentence. As for putting sentencing in the hands of judges whom we must trust, many judges have lost that trust, resulting in Parliament passing minimum sentencing laws. However, I have a solution that should satisfy Mr. Williams. The sentence for first-degree murder would be 75 years with eligibility for parole after 60 years. Would that do?

Roy Shaver, Wasaga Beach, Ont.

Exotic brew

I love that the Letters page allows people such as letter-writer Simon Dermer to expound on an arcane subject like Black Ivory Coffee (which is “ground from beans that are first eaten and digested by elephants, [then] are harvested from a ‘deposit’ ”). I hope the elephant driver who discovered this exotic brew gets royalties.

Arnold W. Hoskyn, Abbotsford, B.C.

The Inuglak Whalers deserve to win

With so much bad news in your paper recently, I was simply overjoyed to read about the Inuglak Whalers hockey team in Whale Cove, Nunavut, who raised $22,000 for a trip to play hockey with pen pals in Geraldton, Ont. It actually warmed the cockles of my heart to hear that so many people felt strongly enough that these boys should reap the benefits of their hard work. Teacher Andy Mcfarlane should be commended for his dedication to these young boys. What an experience for them and, if they don’t win, they will still have the memories — but I hope they win.

S. Fruitman, St. Catharines, Ont.

‘It takes courage to ask for euthanasia’

The letter from Eli Honing doesn’t give readers the true story of the twins and their decision to ask for euthanasia in Belgium. Both men were 45 years old, deaf and with the emerging blindness. One had a severely deformed spine and had also undergone heart surgery. One of the brothers had to sleep sitting upright as he had breathing problems.

The two of them, strong Catholics, trudged from one disease to another. They were really worn out. It takes a lot of courage to ask for euthanasia.

Hans Bleeker, Breda, the Netherlands.

The deafblind can still enjoy life

While I fully sympathize with deaf persons facing blindness, I wish to point out to letter-writer Daniel Berry that there is life after a person becomes both deaf and blind. I spent several years working with deafblind individuals, some who were deafblind from birth, helping them to live as independently as possible. By no stretch of the imagination could one consider these deafblind young men and women to be in “solitary confinement.” Deafblind Ontario Services (where I worked some years ago) does admirable work in this field.

Edward Abela, Markham, Ont.

Don’t sell our embassies

I agree with John Ivison that beating up our diplomats in foreign embassies has no political costs. But it is an odd approach for a country that lives off trade and a government whose only real specific achievement, by its own admission, is a trade agreement. And when they propose selling off embassies, the Conservative government is not reporting the true costs, as the savings they claim do not include the operating expenses for rented venues after the sales are made.

There is also a soft power in having our international representatives work in locations that provide continuity and have stature.

A better fiscal solution would be to explore the taxation potential that exists amongst the 2.8 million expatriate Canadians, many who declare off-shore tax residence, who use our commercial and consular services. The Conservatives should reverse their own decision to cut in half the visa-processing fee for immigration for political purposes. The loss of proceeds exceeds each year the gains from selling off Canada’s international assets.

John Gruetzner, Creemore, Ont.

Christmas encompasses all religions

Kudos to the Humber College teacher who thought of inviting international students to a Christmas party. I love Christmas, but I have never thought of it as an especially religious holiday.The story of Jesus doesn’t really describe what I, and many people I know, think of as the Christmas holiday we love to celebrate.

First, as someone recently pointed out in a letter to the Post, the trees from the forests of medieval Germany, looking much like our Canadian Shield evergreens, were originally a pagan symbol. Apparently, the fact that they were still green at the coldest, darkest time of the year gave hope to people. Rather Canadian, I’d say.

The Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens’ classic story, can still be seen on a number of Canadian stages every December. Caring for children and the less fortunate also formed part of the lessons Ebenezer Scrooge learned on Christmas Eve. However, these lessons were brought to Scrooge by three ghosts. Do ghosts represent a religion?

Finally, a major part of our Canadian Christmas celebration originated in North America, when, in 1823, Clement Moore, in a town in New York state, published a poem that contained the lines, “On Dasher, on Dancer, on Prancer and Vixen……”

Have a great Christmas holiday, whatever you believe in.

Ruth Cameron, Toronto.

Surprise, surprise, the students at this party at Humber College in Toronto (“mostly foreign students in their 20s from India, Nigeria and Vietnam”) aren’t really offended by Christmas. That is because the whole concept of people being offended by Christmas is a Liberal construct, having more to do with their own perceived sanctimony rather than any real world evidence. My Sikh and other Asian neighbours have always participated in the season, just as we participate in Diwali, no offence intended or taken.

I felt sympathy for federal minister for industry James Moore the other day, when he uttered those fateful words to a Vancouver radio reporter: “Is it my job to feed my neighbour’s child? I don’t think so.” It sounded Scrooge-like, but wasn’t. As Andrew Coyne noted, the question did not spring from a lack of concern for hungry children — Moore made that clear in other contextualizing statements — but from a wish to clarify the distinction between government’s and parents’ roles in ensuring the well-being of Canadian children.

Moore’s (political) gaffe resonated with me, because I have expressed pretty well the same sentiment on numerous occasions to telephone solicitors for programs called Feed-a-Child and the like. The volunteers, asking for donations for school breakfast programs, always regretted their bad luck in reaching me. With most other charities I say yes or no and the call is soon over. In this case, because I didn’t want them to think I was a cheapskate in general or didn’t care about poor children, I felt bound to explain why it was their charity in particular I wouldn’t donate to on principle. Our conversations went something like this:

Me: What is this money used for?

Charity canvasser: For breakfast in school, to feed children who are hungry and can’t focus on their schoolwork.

CC: Well, I don’t know that. But the children are coming to school hungry.

Me: Who is so poor in Canada that they can’t afford to give their child breakfast? Oatmeal is cheap, nourishing and filling. So are powdered milk and raisins.

CC: But some children don’t get breakfast at home and they are hungry. It isn’t their fault if they don’t get breakfast.

Me: No, it isn’t. It’s their parents’ fault. Maybe the school should call them in and have a chat with them. Perhaps with a social worker present who can explain to them what happens to people who neglect their children’s well-being.

CC: Thank you for your time.

Mr. Moore and I share a common view of the difference between state and parental responsibility. It is not the state’s job to feed children breakfast, or to diaper them or to ensure they wear warm enough clothing or to wash them behind their ears. Those are the functions of a parent. If these services are not being rendered by parents, the child is being neglected. Enabling the neglect will only convince negligent parents that diminished responsibility on their part is the norm in our society. If breakfast at school is provided for their children as a matter of course, it wont be long before more services are expected – lunch, dinner, baths – and why not?

The youngest of nine children, my father grew up in abject poverty. He never owned a pair of new shoes until he was an adult, and his hand-me-downs were lined with newspaper to cover the holes in the sole. I heard many stories from him and my aunts and uncles about how difficult life was for his immigrant parents, but I can’t remember any of them complaining that they went to school hungry, or that their parents expected the government to feed their children. They would have been ashamed at such an open admission of failure on their part.

It’s too bad shame has disappeared from our discourse in these matters. We “mustn’t judge.” But parents should judge themselves. They should be ashamed of themselves if they can’t manage to put a bowl of oatmeal on the table for their children in the morning. Shame is a great motivator and there is too little of it in our deeply caring society. It is not poverty that prevents parents from feeding their children breakfast, it is the inability to manage meagre resources in such a way that children’s needs are met first, a principle that used to be honoured as the norm (and still is by many poor families).

I’m not unsympathetic to parents who cannot meet their responsibilities for reasons other than poverty. But if parents are too beset with personal problems to attend to their responsibilities to their children, then social services should ideally provide support to them: not by infantilizing them and acting as surrogate parents to their children, but by helping them to help themselves, by offering guidance in resource management, and motivating them to fulfill their obligations. If they can’t or won’t, then the child must be placed with others who will.

A separatist apostateIn an open letter reprinted in the Montreal Gazette, former Bloc Québécois (now-independent) MP Maria Mouraniexplains that the sovereignty movement’s abandonment of its traditionally broad-minded view of Quebec society, and the casual ease with which its leaders now seem willing to weaken the province’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms by “excluding conspicuous religious believers” from protection, have finally pushed her off the bandwagon. “I have come to the conclusion that my belonging to Canada, with its Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, better protects the Quebec identity of all citizens of Quebec,” she writes. “I am no longer an independentist.”

André Pratte of La Pressethinks Mourani’s appreciation for Canada’s constitutionally protected Charter of Rights (as opposed to Quebec’s), combined with Pauline Marois’ recent comments in Monaco, where she stressed the degree of autonomy the Quebec government already has in areas like culture, health, education and immigration, make a pretty darn good case for federalism. Agreed.

While Pierre Karl Péladeau continues to deny rumours he’ll be running for the Parti Québécois, Tasha Kheiriddin argues it would make a heck of a lot of sense. He “would fill a major void in the PQ’s arsenal: the lack of someone with a credible economic background,” she writes in the National Post. The problem for leader Marois, Kheiriddin observes, is that he very likely wouldn’t be content as a mere cabinet minister.

Unlike with the Pastagate affair, try as he might, the Gazette‘s Don Macpherson can find nothing in the relevant texts to support the Office de la langue Française going after two hospital employees for daring to speak Haitian Creole to each other at work. “Creolegate is apparently a case of the OQLF exceeding its authority in order to ‘protect’ French against a French-language public institution and its French-speaking employees,” he writes. “That’s probably not what the Marois government had in mind when it told the language police to stop making Quebec and its language law look foolish.”

‘Round OttawaSenator David Tkachuk, writing in the Citizen, absurdly accusesAndrew Coyne of “carrying water” for the Liberals and NDP in his Clusterduff commentary. We must say, if Coyne turns out to be a double super-secret New Democrat supporter, we will be … surprised.

In the matter of Industry Minister James Moore’s comments on who is responsible for feeding one’s hungry neighbour children, Postmedia’s Andrew Coyne argues he was guilty of nothing more than answering a tendentious question in a politically inadvisable, not very articulate, and mostly correct fashion. Poverty is not at an all-time high, as it had been put to him; and “as a general rule,” says Coyne, it is indeed “parents’ responsibility to feed their kids.”

The Vancouver Sun‘s editorialists think now would be a good time to implement some tax incentives such that more Canadians might choose to feed their neighbours’ hungry children, metaphorically speaking. Why, they ask, do we credit donations to political parties at 75%, but charities at just 15%? Easy answer: Politicians make the rules. But it’s a very trenchant question.

The Post‘s John Ivison detects “an indecent haste” in the federal government’s push to sell off valuable embassies and official residences in various foreign capitals. “Could a better price be realized if and when European real estate markets rebound?” he wonders. “Are we undermining our own international influence by moving our diplomats from the heart of [cities] and relocating them into more remote locations?” These Conservatives aren’t exactly enthusiastic about the foreign service, after all.

At iPolitics, Lawrence Martin reports on a recent lunch with former Environment Minister Peter Kent, who has no regrets about drinking Stephen Harper’s Kool-Aid (as Martin puts it); says relations between government and scientists aren’t as bad as everyone says; and argues that journalism has gone to hell in a handbasket. Martin asks whether Kent’s “decades of experience as a communicator” didn’t buy him some leeway to speak his mind, even on Stephen Harper’s tight ship. “Didn’t they seek his advice? Here, Kent paused and, with the deep broadcaster’s cadence, intoned: ‘The authority you ascribe to me in my previous life did not transfer.'”

Government, what is it good for?Ken Dryden, writing in TheGlobe and Mail, very eloquently explains that Rob Ford became Mayor of Toronto, and retains significant support despite the bedlam he creates, because people don’t like smarmy elite-sounding politicians and don’t think government is much good for anything. You already knew that, right?

“Give well-connected people ready access to public money, exempt them from normal lines of accountability, and everybody knows what will happen,” John Robson writes in the Sun Media papers. “Except, oddly, the politicians, who spend their adult lives and sometimes their adolescences obsessed with public policy, yet come out knowing almost literally nothing about it.” That goes for the Ontario Liberals with their endless mismanagement scandals and scandalettes. And it goes for the federal Conservatives, who dithered on Canada Post until it blew up in their faces. “Remember: Every single EU member has eliminated their postal monopoly. Even France. These guys? Dawk.” (We had to look that up.)

Possibly you have read of the shocking statements on child poverty this week from the federal minister of Industry, James Moore. I’ll repeat them here for the record, with a warning that the contents may be disturbing to some readers:

“Of course nobody wants kids to go to school hungry… We want to make sure that kids go to school full-bellied… Empowering families with more power and resources so that they can feed their own children is, I think, a good thing.”

Mind you, those may not have been the statements you read. What you would be more likely to have seen quoted, from a scrum with a Vancouver radio reporter, would be: “Is it my job to feed my neighbour’s child? I don’t think so,” or “is that always the government’s job to be there to serve people their breakfast?” The story appeared on the radio station’s website under the headline “Federal minister says child poverty not Ottawa’s problem.”

Which was the more representative expression of the minister’s thinking: the part where he expressed support for “empowering families with more power and resources” to “make sure that kids go to school full-bellied”? Or the part where he asked whether it was “always the government’s job to … serve people their breakfast”? The only logical answer is both. He said them together. He meant them to be taken together.

The statements were part of a long, rambling answer which the minister probably regrets giving. He had been asked — challenged, might be better: “Child poverty in B.C. is at an all-time high. What does the federal government plan to do about that?” The question, it is evident from the tape, flummoxed him, and it’s not hard to see why.

One, the rate of child poverty is not at an all time-high. The measurement of poverty is a hugely contentious issue, but by the standard long favoured by poverty activist groups, Statistics Canada’s Low Income Cut-off (after tax), poverty is in fact at an all-time low in Canada, at 8.8% of the population; child poverty, at 8.5%, is just off its low. There remains a particular problem in B.C., with a rate of child poverty of 11.3%. But this, too, is well down from its peak — it was over 19% just a decade ago — and lower than at most times in the last 40 years.

Two, the direct relief of poverty is primarily a provincial jurisdiction, at least as far as social assistance is concerned. The federal government helps, whether in the form of transfers to the provinces, or in benefits delivered to individuals: the National Child Tax Benefit, the Working Income Tax Benefit, the Guaranteed Income Supplement for the elderly, and so on.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIT-NPtSOok&w=640&h=390]

And of course the feds have some responsibility for the general state of the economy, the rate of unemployment and growth, on which the incidence of poverty crucially depends. The reason poverty has fallen so far over the last two decades is in large measure due to the steady growth we have experienced through most of that period.

All well and good. But no one that I am aware of has proposed that the feds should operate school breakfast programs.

All of these were no doubt coursing through Moore’s head in that instant. And in the moments that followed, he attempted to stammer them out. “We’re not going to usurp the province’s jurisdiction on that,” he began. “How one certainly scales and define poverty is not quite an apples to apples comparison all across the country… More Canadians are working now than ever before… We’ve never been wealthier as a country…” And then those seemingly contradictory passages about empowering families with resources but not actually serving them breakfast.

It’s clumsy, it’s ill-phrased, it leaves much unsaid and says much that might have been better not. But it’s also, by and large, true. Social assistance is provincial jurisdiction. Poverty definitions do vary. Both employment and household net worth are at an all-time high. As for the concluding passages: is it to be disputed that, as a general rule, it is parents’ responsibility to feed their kids? Where aid is provided, is it not at least arguable that we should pay benefits in cash, rather than in services — letting families, rather than caseworkers, decide how they should be spent? Isn’t that, in part, what Senator Hugh Segal’s campaign for a guaranteed annual income is about?

Ffour films starring the late actor will be released posthumously, in addition to a television show with Hoffman in the starring rolePhilip Seymour Hoffman was such a prolific actor that he often had several films on the go, in addition to juggling various theatrical commitments. So it's unsurprising that no fewer than four films starring the late actor will be released posthumously, in addition to a television show with Hoffman in the starring role.
[related_links /]
In the weeks before his death, Hoffman had been filming his role as Plutarch Heavensbee in the upcoming<em> Hunger Games</em> finales, <em>Mockingjay</em> Parts 1 and 2. On Sunday, Lionsgate <a href="http://www.deadline.com/2014/02/philip-seymour-hoffman-dead-hunger-games-mockingjay-lionsgate/&quot; target="_blank">released a statement confirming that most of Hoffman's scenes in the films had already been shot</a> — the actor was seven days away from completing his commitment on the project, Lionsgate specified — and the studio noted that his role in the films would not be recast.
[caption id="attachment_139776" align="alignleft" width="620"]<img class="size-large wp-image-139776" alt="Lionsgate" src="http://nationalpostcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hunger-games-hoffman.jpg?w=620&quot; width="620" height="464" /> Lionsgate[/caption]
While it is unclear how Lionsgate plans to work around any scenes in the film's second instalment featuring Hoffman that had not been filmed, the studio also confirmed that Hoffman's death would not affect the films' scheduled release dates of Nov. 21, 2015, and Nov. 20, 2015.
Hoffman also recently premiered two films at the Sundance Film Festival: <em>God's Pocket</em>, directed by <em>Mad Men</em> star John Slattery, and <em>A Most Wanted Man</em>, from Control director Anton Corbijn. The Oscar-winner has been praised for his work in the latter — which, despite the <em>Hunger Games</em>' 2016 release date, is technically Hoffman's final completed role — with <em>Time</em> magazine writing that his work in the movie may be among his best. A Most Wanted Man has not yet secured a wide release date and no trailer has been released, but you can watch a brief clip of Hoffman's work in the film below:
Hoffman stars in <em>God's Pocket</em>, based on the book of the same name by Peter Dexter, alongside Christina Hendricks and John Turturro. Promoting the film at Sundance, Hoffman said that he was attracted to his character for seemingly personal reasons, making a few remarks that take on some prescience in the wake of his passing.
"He's my age and he's dealing with issues you have to deal with in middle age," Hoffman said in an interview about the role. "You realize that, choices you made along the way, you have to shift or change, or you just stay in the dark."
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLAmIO5luuI&w=620]
And finally, Hoffman will star in the upcoming Showtime series <em>Happyish</em> – the future of which, <a href="http://www.deadline.com/2014/02/showtime-on-philip-seymour-hoffmans-death-future-of-his-series-happyish-uncertain/&quot; target="_blank">according to reports</a>, is uncertain, since its creation was largely contingent on having secured Hoffman as the star.
Hoffman was found dead on Sunday morning in his Manhattan apartment, of an apparent heroin overdose. The actor had long struggled with substance abuse problems, checking into rehab in 2012 after a reported 23 years sober. He was 46 years old and leaves behind three children.
[ooyala code="AzeDJpazoOTM3rcdfuOiQp8vU_VB6MOs" player_id="29345e61bd154274ae9287c2b0ea4fe2"]
[caption id="attachment_139778" align="alignleft" width="620"]<img class="size-large wp-image-139778" alt="Jemal Countess/Getty Images" src="http://nationalpostcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hoffman-police.jpg?w=620&quot; width="620" height="464" /> Jemal Countess/Getty Images[/caption]
[caption id="attachment_139765" align="alignleft" width="620"]<img class="size-large wp-image-139765" alt="Handout" src="http://nationalpostcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hoffman2.jpg?w=620&quot; width="620" height="464" /> Handout[/caption]
[caption id="attachment_139757" align="alignleft" width="620"]<img class="size-large wp-image-139757" alt="Jason DeCrow/The Associated Press" src="http://nationalpostcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/psh2.jpg?w=620&quot; width="620" height="464" /> Jason DeCrow/The Associated Press[/caption]

To be sure, the minister might have done better to have peppered these with “of course, any amount of child poverty is too much,” that “while we have made great progress, there is always more we can do.” But we are a long way from the sentiments his critics have since attributed to him, of which “are there no workhouses” might give the flavour.

The minister’s statements, shocking as they seem in isolation, were indeed quoted out of context, as he later protested: context, not just in the sense of the words that surround the quoted passages, but also everything we know about the person who made them. Moore has said nothing previously to suggest a belief that children should be left to starve, a fact that would have been known to most of those who cited the story. Yet he was pilloried as if he had.

Because he had said something that was capable of being interpreted that way, and under the rules of the political game, you lose as many points if not more for that: hence the minister’s subsequent abject apology. Perhaps that’s fair enough. He is in the communications business. Staying out of needless trouble is part of his job description. I say needless: this was not a brave but necessary challenge to the status quo, intended to provoke debate. It was an inept answer to a loaded question, the political equivalent of a kick-me sign.

Law and orderJustice Minister Peter MacKay’s public spat with judges who refuse to levy victim surcharges in what they see as unreasonable circumstances stems from the fundamental misapprehension that (in MacKay’s words) victims belong “at the epicentre of the criminal justice system,” Postmedia’s Christie Blatchford argues. “The whole reason for the rule of law is to take justice out of the hands of any one of us who might feel wronged or aggrieved and who understandably might be inclined to revenge,” she writes. Victims have plenty of resources, Blatchford maintains, and all the access they should have to courtroom proceedings — the right to read a victim impact statement, for example.

On a day where we learn that MacKay is openly musing about what sounds for all the world like decriminalizing marijuana, while insisting that’s certainly not what he’s musing about, Paul Wells of Maclean’s brings news of Liberal retaliation against Conservative advertisements suggesting that Justin Trudeau thinks every Canadian child should smoke lots of weed. (These were aimed specifically at ethnic communities, as the Liberals’ seem to be — communities that Wells notes were key to the failed push for a referendum on marijuana laws in British Columbia.) Wells is surprised to see how significant the drug policy debate has become in the early skirmishes of the 2015 election campaign.

“Even diehard ‘tough on crime’ advocates must surely see that nobody will benefit from the separation of [an incarcerated] mother and [her] child,” Barbara Kay writes in the National Post. We think she’s far too optimistic on that front. But we certainly agree that separation is pointless — it’s not like babies know they’re in jail, for heaven’s sake — and that allowing them to stay together offers a chance for rehabilitation and instruction in parenting skills that prisoners might lack.

Benjamin Perrin, writing in TheGlobe and Mail, argues that whatever the Supreme Court rules on Friday, Canada should set about reforming its prostitution laws with an eye towards eradicating the oldest profession entirely. One approach could be to stop punishing prostitutes themselves altogether, ding johns with big fines, and use the proceeds to get women out of what Perrin sees as an inherently harmful industry.

Social studiesRichard Martineau of Le Journal de Montréalpresents an 18-point declaration of Quebec citizenship. Interesting items include point four: “Citizens of Quebec are Quebecers, period” — not Mexican-Quebecers or Haitian-Quebecers or Algerian-Quebecers; point five: “We don’t care where you came from. What’s important is where we’re going”; and point eight: “Quebec is not a blank page. We have a history, a past, a culture that we want to preserve.” If Quebecers would just accept the social hierarchy implicit therein, they’d all get along fine! Oh, and point 17 is important too: You can’t just go around grabbing women’s behinds, but it’s fine to “turn your head” to admire their legs and, ahem, silhouettes.

“My guess is that [Industry Minister James] Moore does not hate poor people or their children,” the Toronto Star‘s Thomas Walkom charitably argues. Instead, when Moore said it wasn’t his job to feed his neighbours’ children, he simply meant “what he said,” which was this: “Empowering families with more power and resources so they can feed their own children is, I think, a good thing.” Walkom says this represents “an ideological belief that flourished among liberals in the 19th century and that is held today by many Conservatives,” namely that “individuals are responsible for their own destinies, that markets distribute income fairly and that (with limited exceptions) governments should get out of the way to let people live their lives.” And that’s why the Tories, for example, are so resistant to expanding the CPP.

Hmm. We’re not sure we’re buying the premise here: If Moore wanted to say “you’re on your own, the market will take care of you, and the government isn’t here to help,” would he have said he wanted to “empower families with more power and resources” (our italics)? Or would he have said … you know, something approximating the opposite of that?

And George Jonas, writing in the Post, ruminates entertainingly on murderous dynastic politics around the world, which thank goodness we don’t have to live with here.

As it turns out, Industry Minister James Moore doesn’t actually believe that his neighbours’ hungry children are none of his concern. His remark to a British Columbia radio show — “Is it the government’s job, my job to feed my neighbour’s child? I don’t think so” — was simply an impolitic way of saying that in an ideal world, it would be better if all parents had the means and the inclination to feed their children before school than for schools to have to take up the slack.

Surely we can all agree on that. Mr. Moore having apologized for his gaffe and confirmed his belief in the importance of “caring for each other” and fighting poverty — though not before spending most of a weekend on Twitter insisting he had been quoted out of context — we can now close this file until the sound byte winds up in its first attack ad.

The question remains, however: Do we care enough about our fellow Canadians to cook them dinner — literally or, less awkwardly, metaphorically? The Fraser Institute’s 2013 Generosity Index, released Monday, suggests Canadians continue to lag Americans in their charitable donations: 26% of Americans claimed donations on their tax returns in 2011, versus 23% of Canadians; and as a percentage of aggregate income, Americans donated more than twice as much (1.33%) as Canadians (0.64%).

Related

Cathy Barr, senior vice-president at Imagine Canada — an advocacy group for the non-profit sector itself — argues that apples-to-apples comparisons of the two countries’ tax codes are very difficult to achieve. But she agrees there is a “political/cultural difference” between the two countries.

“Most research would show Americans are less inclined to rely on their government. They believe more that it’s up to [individuals] to support themselves, but also there’s an onus on wealthy individuals to give back as a form of charity,” she says. “Canadians as a whole tend to believe a little bit more that government is responsible for these things.”

In a time of austerity, that’s a bit of a problem.

Never mind what the Americans are doing. From a high of 25.1% in the mid-2000s, the percentage of Canadian tax filers claiming donations has fallen to 22.9%. (In 1990 it was nearly 30%, Ms. Barr notes.) More importantly, the percentage of Canadians’ aggregate income donated fell from 0.81% to 0.64%.

We might prefer that governments fund the projects and programs they value, but if governments won’t, extinction needn’t always be the only option

“Had Canadians donated in 2011 at the same rate as 2006, Canada’s charities would have received an additional $2.3-billion in private donations in 2011,” the Fraser Institute’s Charles Lammam told Postmedia News.

That’s a whack of dough. And it’s a reminder for Canadian activists and NGOs, and for the politicians who claim to support them: They might prefer that governments fund the projects and programs they value, but if governments won’t, extinction needn’t always be the only option.

A recent series in the Toronto Star chronicled the “grim choices” we ostensibly have to make in order “to cope in the leaner, meaner Canada presided over by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.” It mentioned not just cuts to social programs but to the Experimental Lakes Area, the National Association of Women and the Law, the National Network on Environments and Women’s Health, Katimavik and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

Dan Steinberg/The Associated PressAngus T. Jones has been replaced on Two and a Half Men.

It could have gone further down Mr. Harper’s list of enemy entities: the Health Council of Canada, the First Nations Statistical Institute, the National Council on Welfare, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Science, Kairos and Rights and Democracy.

Whenever such organizations are threatened at the federal level, we hear the pro-forma complaints: Why can’t the Harper government find a piddling $X-million out of its massive budget to support this worthwhile cause?

But the pro-forma complaints have a flipside. By my (admittedly rough) calculations, the figures bandied about for all of the above-mentioned organizations — the amount of money per year they needed to keep going — add up to something like $60-million. That’s less than 3% of the decline in Canadians’ charitable donations from 2006 to 2011, as calculated by Mr. Lammam. If the amount is so piddling, and the work so valuable, why can’t Canadians at large find room in their collective budget?

In fact, some of those organizations once feared or declared “dead” are still around. You can donate to them, if you think they do (or did) good work. It would be a culture change. But if the work is important, politicians and activists should be using their platforms to encourage private donations as enthusiastically as they denounce government cuts.